United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs34 F.
3d 946
Manuel Sesario DePINEDA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Calvin HEMPHILL, Den. Police Dept.; Sandra Young,
Perjuror/suborned; David Olivas, Dep. D.A. Denver; J.
Rock, Den. Police Dept.; Norm Early, Jr., Den. Dist. Atty.;
Roy Romer, Governor, Gov. of Colorado; Rodney Gomez, Den.
D.A. Investigator; Lamar Simms, Dep. D.A. Denver; Gary
Martinez, Perjuror/Murderer; Stephen J. Vigil,
Perjuror/Accomplice, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-1094.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1994.
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, McKAY and BALDOCK, Circuit
Judges.ORDER
PER CURIAM.
On July 11, 1994, this court entered an order denying plaintiff's petition for
rehearing, 25 F.3d 1056. Upon our own motion, we amend that order as
follows.
Upon consideration of plaintiff's petition for rehearing, we conclude that the
petition for rehearing is without merit. Accordingly, the petition for rehearing
is DENIED.
Based on plaintiff's history of repetitive filings and abuse of the judicial
process, we have sua sponte chosen to impose appellate sanctions on plaintiff's
future filings in this court "commensurate with our inherent power to enter
orders 'necessary or appropriate' in aid of our jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1651(a). Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 314-15 (10th
Cir.1994); see Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir.1989).
Since 1990, plaintiff has filed eleven pro se appeals.1 Ten of the appeals relate
to his murder conviction in Colorado state court.2 Seven appeals were from
orders dismissing civil rights complaints against judges, prosecutors, courtappointed attorneys, law enforcement officers, an investigator, public officials,
and witnesses involved in his arrest, prosecution, and conviction.3 Five of the
civil rights appeals ended in affirmances because plaintiff failed to state a valid
claim. 4 One was dismissed for lack of prosecution,5 and one was affirmed
because the action was frivolous under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d).6 Four appeals
were from denials of petitions for writs of habeas corpus.7 Two of the habeas
appeals were dismissed when this court denied a certificate of probable cause,8
one ended in affirmance for failure to exhaust state remedies,9 and one is still
pending. 10 In one of the cases in which this court denied a certificate of
probable cause, this court determined that plaintiff's petition was successive
and an abuse of the writ of habeas corpus.11 In addition to his eleven appeals,
plaintiff also filed an original proceeding which was summarily denied for
failure to show any entitlement to the relief requested.12 Plaintiff has filed
petitions for rehearing in eight of his cases, all unsuccessful.13
Plaintiff was given the privilege of proceeding in forma pauperis in most of
these cases. Further, he was given the leniency due pro se litigants. See Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). He
abused these privileges by consistently raising the same allegations relating to
his arrest and conviction. See Winslow, 17 F.3d at 315.
Plaintiff has no absolute, unconditional right of access to the courts and no
constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions. See id.
Because plaintiff has abused the privileges granted him, filing restrictions are
appropriate. Winslow, 17 F.3d at 315; see also In re Sindram, 498 U.S. 177,
179-80, 111 S.Ct. 596, 597-98, 112 L.Ed.2d 599 (1991) (although there is
waiver of filing fees and costs for indigent litigants in order to promote interests
of justice, goal of fairly dispensing justice is compromised when the court is
forced to devote limited resources to processing repetitious and frivolous
requests).
We impose the following reasonable filing restrictions upon plaintiff. See In re
Winslow, 17 F.3d at 315-16; see also Ketchum v. Cruz, 961 F.2d 916, 921
(10th Cir.1992) (citing Tripati, 878 F.2d at 354) (this court approves
restrictions placed on litigants with a documented lengthy history of vexatious,
abusive actions, so long as the court publishes guidelines about what the
plaintiff must do to obtain court permission to file an action, and the plaintiff is
given notice and an opportunity to respond to the restrictive order). Plaintiff is
ENJOINED from proceeding as an appellant or as a petitioner in an original
proceeding unless he is represented by a licensed attorney admitted to practice
in this court or unless he first obtains permission to proceed pro se.14 To obtain
permission to proceed pro se, plaintiff must take the following steps:
8
1. File a petition with the clerk of this court requesting leave to file a pro se
appeal or original proceeding;
2. Include in the petition the following information:
10
A. A list of all lawsuits currently pending or filed previously with this court,
including the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of each case, and the
current status or disposition of the appeal or original proceeding; and
11
B. A list apprising this court of all outstanding injunctions or orders 15 limiting
plaintiff's access to federal court, including orders and injunctions requiring
plaintiff to seek leave to file matters pro se or requiring him to be represented
by an attorney, including the name, number, and citation, if applicable, of all
such orders or injunctions; and
12
3. File with the clerk a notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, which recites
the issues he seeks to present, including a short discussion of the legal right
asserted for modifying the district court's decision, and describing with
particularity the order being challenged. The affidavit also must certify, to the
best of plaintiff's knowledge, that the legal arguments being raised are not
frivolous or made in bad faith, that they are warranted by existing law or a good
faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, that
the appeal is not interposed for any improper purpose such as delay or to
needlessly increase the cost of litigation, and that he will comply with all
appellate and local rules of this court. In an appeal from the denial of a petition
for writ of habeas corpus, the affidavit must certify why the habeas corpus
petition is not successive or an abuse of the writ.
13
These documents shall be submitted to the clerk of the court, who shall forward
them to the Chief Judge for review to determine whether to permit a pro se
appeal or original proceeding. Without the Chief Judge's approval, the matter
will be dismissed. If the Chief Judge approves the filing, an order shall be
entered indicating that the appeal or original proceeding shall proceed in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit
Rules.
14
Plaintiff shall have ten days from the date of this order to file written
objections, limited to fifteen pages, to these proposed sanctions. See Winslow,
17 F.3d at 316. If plaintiff does not file objections, the sanctions shall take
effect twenty days from the date of this order. Id. at 316-17. The filing
restrictions shall apply to any matter filed after that time. If plaintiff does file
timely objections, these sanctions shall not take effect until this court has ruled
on the objections.
15
Plaintiff's motion to stay the mandate pending application for certiorari is
DENIED.
See DePineda v. McKenna, No. 90-1312, dismissed; DePineda v. Garcia, No.
90-1333, affirmed; DePineda v. Sims, No. 90-1334, affirmed; DePineda v.
Martinez, No. 90-1335, affirmed; DePineda v. Tursi, No. 91-1036, affirmed;
DePineda v. Martin, No. 91-1218, affirmed; DePineda v. Gunter, No. 91-1294,
dismissed; DePineda v. Cooper, No. 93-1212, affirmed; DePineda v. Romer,
No. 93-1406, dismissed for lack of prosecution; DePineda v. Zavaras, No. 941052, pending; DePineda v. Hemphill, No. 94-1094, affirmed
The eleventh appeal raised First Amendment free exercise of religion claims.
See DePineda v. Romer, No. 93-1406
See Depineda v. Garcia, No. 90-1333; DePineda v. Sims, No. 90-1334;
DePineda v. Martinez, No. 90-1335; DePineda v. Tursi, No. 91-1036; DePineda
v. Martin, No. 91-1218; DePineda v. Romer, No. 93-1406; DePineda v.
Hemphill, No. 94-1094
See DePineda v. Garcia, No. 90-1333; DePineda v. Martinez, No. 90-1335;
DePineda v. Tursi, No. 91-1036; DePineda v. Martin, No. 91-1218; DePineda
v. Hemphill, No. 94-1094
See DePineda v. Romer, No. 93-1406
See DePineda v. Sims, No. 90-1334
See DePineda v. McKenna, No. 90-1312; DePineda v. Gunter, No. 91-1294;
DePineda v. Cooper, No. 93-1212; DePineda v. Zavaras, No. 94-1052. In three
of his civil rights actions, plaintiff raised claims or asked for relief which could
be construed as seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See DePineda v. Tursi, No. 911036; DePineda v. Martin, No. 91-1218; DePineda v. Hemphill, No. 94-1094.
In each of these cases, plaintiff either failed to name a correct defendant for a
habeas claim or failed to allege a federal constitutional issue
See DePineda v. McKenna, No. 90-1312; DePineda v. Gunter, No. 91-1294
See DePineda v. Cooper, No. 93-1212
10
See DePineda v. Zavaris, No. 94-1052
11
See DePineda v. Gunter, No. 91-1294
12
See DePineda v. Babcock, No. 92-610
13
See DePineda v. McKenna, No. 90-1312; DePineda v. Sims, No. 90-1334;
DePineda v. Martinez, No. 90-1335; DePineda v. Tursi, No. 91-1036; DePineda
v. Gunter, No. 91-1294; DePineda v. Babcock, No. 92-610; DePineda v.
Cooper, No. 93-1212; DePineda v. Hemphill, No. 94-1094
14
In any appeal in which plaintiff is in fact an appellee these restrictions would
not apply
15
The district court has indicated that it may impose sanctions in the future. See
DePineda v. Hemphill, No. 94-1094. "The district court, of course, remains free
to impose appropriate restrictions on abusive litigants." Olson v. Coleman, 997
F.2d 726, 729 (10th Cir.1993)
